What's even more unlikely is that the armchair guardians of Hollywood casting racial heterogeny should be complaining about a pink-skinned British actor everyone agrees is amazing being cast in a role previously filled by a Mexican-born actor of Spanish national descent who is clearly pink-skinned in his best-known film role, playing a character of mixed genetic ancestry according to an in-depth database on the character, and whose cognomen itself (Khan) indicates a non-Indian origin.

So no one should ever express any discontent about the fact that the vast majority of major movie roles consistently go to white males? I just want to make sure that's what you're saying.

You can express it all you like. What makes you think I'm obstructing your freedom of expression? I'm posting my opinions, just as you are, and backing them up with factual information you can read and research for yourself if you're interested.

So no one should ever express any discontent about the fact that the vast majority of major movie roles consistently go to white males? I just want to make sure that's what you're saying.

You can express it all you like. What makes you think I'm obstructing your freedom of expression? I'm posting my opinions, just as you are, and backing them up with factual information you can read and research for yourself if you're interested.

Actually, you're condescendingly suggesting that it is unreasonable to complain about the fact that the producers consciously chose to cast a role that could (arguably should) have been played by a brown actor with a white (albeit very talented) actor.

Actually, you're condescendingly suggesting that it is unreasonable to complain about the fact that the producers consciously chose to cast a role that could (arguably should) have been played by a brown actor with a white (albeit very talented) actor.

This is where you yawn.

I object to your complaining, and find it unreasonable and derail-y. The director cast the part based on a TV show he liked, after an ethnically Hispanic actor previously cast in the role dropped out. The role is of mixed genetic ancestry, a point you decline to so much as yawn at, let alone address. Here's another: the character has pink skin in TWOK and pink skin in STID.

Also, I find your presumption of racial heterogeny guardianship condescending. Also, your grouping together all "brown" people together under one ethnic umbrella is embarrassing.

I'd also point out that I wouldn't classify Ricardo Montalban as "white" but that's perhaps just me. I would also not classify Terrorist Daveed as white either, but that's because he's a Latin Lov-ah.

Whatever "white" means exactly (perhaps someone would care to provide a definition), the character clearly has pink skin in his most famous and widely-known appearance. Maybe "browning" him up for the earlier TOS episode is part of that "racist 60s producer" trend so vehemently decried upthread?

Well, Laurence Olivier blacked himself up to do Othello. He wanted to be authentic in the role, and Othello is a moor so he would have much darker skin than Olivier.

I'm not that up on TOS of Trek, but given the same guy played Khan in Space Seed and WOK it suggests they were happy with it. Is it stated Khan is meant to be a dark-skinned person or is this just an assumption based on the fact the character has a Sikh name?

I'd also point out that I wouldn't classify Ricardo Montalban as "white" but that's perhaps just me. I would also not classify Terrorist Daveed as white either, but that's because he's a Latin Lov-ah.

Whatever "white" means exactly (perhaps someone would care to provide a definition), the character clearly has pink skin in his most famous and widely-known appearance. Maybe "browning" him up for the earlier TOS episode is part of that "racist 60s producer" trend so vehemently decried upthread?

White means "you can claim no other nationality on a college survey to try and sneak in on a scholarship not available to someone who can claim your minority?"

Realistically though, given his work in highlighting positive portrayals of Latinos in film:

The way he was asked to portray Mexicans disturbed him, so Montalbán, along with Richard Hernandez, Val de Vargas, Rodolfo Hoyos Jr., Carlos Rivas, Tony de Marco, and Henry Darrow established the Nosotros ("We") Foundation in 1970 to advocate for Latinos in the movie and television industry. He served as its first president... The foundation created the Golden Eagle Awards, an annual awards show that highlights Latino actors. The awards are presented in conjunction with the Nosotros American Latino Film Festival (NALFF), held at the Ricardo Montalbán Theatre in Hollywood.

I very much doubt he would call himself "white" either. Sadly, he's gone now, so we can't ask him.

Also, in terms of color -- I would just posit that it's just Montalban in all of his glory at each of his ages in the photos. Or, if you need an in-universe explanation: he was genetically engineered based on some old Michael Jackson therapy results on Ceti Alpha V to whiten himself after he converted from Sikh to Desert Planet Baptist before swearing vengeance.

Also, I need to tag
@Souderwan so he can yell at me for the college crack...

Actually, you're condescendingly suggesting that it is unreasonable to complain about the fact that the producers consciously chose to cast a role that could (arguably should) have been played by a brown actor with a white (albeit very talented) actor.

This is where you yawn.

I object to your complaining, and find it unreasonable and derail-y.

And I object to your objecting. Now what? I asked:

me said:

So no one should ever express any discontent about the fact that the vast majority of major movie roles consistently go to white males? I just want to make sure that's what you're saying?

The question remains. You responded with some nonsense about freedom of speech knowing full well that I wasn't asking you if you wanted the power to subjugate me. That's childish and stupid.

You said:

The director cast the part based on a TV show he liked, after an ethnically Hispanic actor previously cast in the role dropped out. The role is of mixed genetic ancestry, a point you decline to so much as yawn at, let alone address. Here's another: the character has pink skin in TWOK and pink skin in STID.

Actually, I did address it. You just ignored it when I did. Feel free to go back and read my earlier posts on the matter. I am no longer in the habit of writing the same post over and over again.

It's a woefully outdated and discredited anthropological classification (and was used heavily by eugenicists)-- as is "Caucasian"-- plus it sounds like a protagonist on an 80's cartoon show meant to sell toys to kids.

So no one should ever express any discontent about the fact that the vast majority of major movie roles consistently go to white males? I just want to make sure that's what you're saying?

The question remains. You responded with some nonsense about freedom of speech knowing full well that I wasn't asking you if you wanted the power to subjugate me. That's childish and stupid.

The question does not remain; I answered it. As stated, I object to your misplaced hypersensitive Hollywood casting racial watchdogging and am voicing my negative opinion in that regard. You can "express discontent" about your pet invented "problem", and I can object to you doing that on the basis that I disagree that what you're describing is a problem. None of that is childish or stupid.

As to "Now what?", this is a discussion forum. We discuss things. "Now what?" is that you respond, if you're interested. Maybe in an effort to educate yourself on the subject at hand, you look into the racial make-up of Sikh adherents worldwide and discover that a small percentage of them is "white". Maybe you research the character Khan and discover for yourself that his genetic ancestry is mixed according to several databases. Maybe you look into the origins of race itself and decide it's all an unscientific invention anyway. Maybe you look at pics of Montalban from TWOK and realize his skin was pink, right down to his bulging arms and bare chest. "Now what?" is that maybe you come to understand you're inventing things to get mad at.

Merlin said:

The director cast the part based on a TV show he liked, after an ethnically Hispanic actor previously cast in the role dropped out. The role is of mixed genetic ancestry, a point you decline to so much as yawn at, let alone address. Here's another: the character has pink skin in TWOK and pink skin in STID.

Actually, I did address it. You just ignored it when I did. Feel free to go back and read my earlier posts on the matter. I am no longer in the habit of writing the same post over and over again.

Okay, you addressed it. Yay! I must have missed reading that post. I give you all assurances I did not intentionally ignore it, as neglecting to address any point in my interlocutor's position reveals a weakness in my own position. In short, it's not my style to ignore points, so I'll go back and check it out.

lol. I hold no guardianship. But when elections are held, give me a hollar. I might run just to piss you off.

Okay. You go ahead and be as cryptic as you like. I prefer to state matters plainly.

Plainly speaking, I am for social equality of all kinds. Racial, sexual, religious. A brotherhood of humanity. Part of that belief system -- for me -- is chiseling away at the core fallacy underlying racism: the concept of race itself. It's an 18th-century invention that does not hold up under scrutiny, and is no longer supported as real or useful by any accredited mainstream scientist, anthropologist, ethnologist or sociologist.

Merlin said:

Also, your grouping together all "brown" people together under one ethnic umbrella is embarrassing.

I find your inability to see beyond your myopic world view embarrassing. Alas, we all have our crosses to bear.

Souderwan, you've either accepted someone else's invented ideas about what the "white race" is, or you've invented a definition for yourself. Evidently this definition includes any person with pinkish-white skin: peoples from as far afield as Ireland to Russia to the Americas. (Correct me if you have some other definition of "white".) This is a VAST demographic, consisting of billions of people worldwide. Then when some of the people fitting that description, who can trace their origins back to that ENORMOUS swathe of global geography, are cast in movies made by and marketed to that same gigantic group of people, you become angry and decry preferential treatment.

You've created the scenario yourself by ascribing to an outmoded thought system. Since the base of people you categorize as "white" is so gigantically large, it's inevitable that many, many people worldwide are going to fall into it. Then you vocally object to that huge group being hired to fulfill certain roles in fictional photoplays, and behave in a morally outraged fashion that brooks no argument, lest your interlocutor(s) be branded as reprehensible, childish, stupid racists. That's what you've done to me, but I resist these labels because I know the truth is something altogether more complex.